Feb 4, 2013 6:00am PST
relationships in the pentagon in his ability to do the job. >> if i were chuck hagel i'd go to the president and say do you still have confidence in me? do you think i could do the job. >> you would offer to potentially withdraw? >> you've got to if you think you're not going to be effective because of what's happened. >> the whole issue isn't getting confirmed. it's whether he'll have political capital as defense secretary to work with the congress and generals in a meaningful way. >>> coming up next, part of a one on one discussion i had with a man who has had just about every powerful position in washington other than the presidency, defense secretary leon panetta on his four decades in washington, the morality of drone strikes and advice he has for president obama. >>> plus the pack men, karl rove's new plan to pour cold water on the tea party and keep senate seats in the republican column. today's politics planner, as you can see, former president clinton will be speaking at ed koch's funeral, president obama is off to minneapolis and chris christie hits letterman. [ male announcer ] le
Feb 3, 2013 11:00pm PST
display this week when the president's pick to head the pentagon, former republican senator chuck hagel, came under fire from members of his own party during a very contentious confirmation hearing. >> name one person in your opinion who's intim nated by the israeli lobby in the united states senate. >> are we right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> senator hagel, please answer the question i asked. today, do you think unilateral sanctions would be a bad idea? >> all this raising questions about how effective chuck hagel will be if confirmed as secretary of defense. earlier this weekend, i sat down for a rare joint interview with the top military leadership issue the outgoing secretary of defense leon panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general martin dempsey. >>> secretary panetta, welcome back to "meet the press." general dempsey, welcome. let me start with the man that is poised to take your place. he underwent on thursday a pretty tough round of questioning. he seemed to struggle with a lot of the answers. of course this is chuck hagel, the for
Feb 4, 2013 3:00am PST
your perspective on the pentagon's role in securing our embassies? we just had a near suicide attack, if you will, suicide bomber, at an embassy in turkey just last week. what can be done more than what has been done now? >> the important things to do are first of all you've got to build up the host country capacity. in the end, these embassies do depend on host country, the details that provide security. so you've got to try to develop that. >> this shouldn't be more marines? >> no, no. let me get the rest of the part of it. you have to harden these embassies as much as possible. and third, we have been working with the state department to determine whether additional marines ought to be assigned to that area. and in the end, the final alternative is our ability to respond in having our troops in a position where they can respond quickly. but i have to tell you, a lot of that still is dependent on whether intelligence tells us that we've got a big problem, and gives us enough warning so that we can get to the place to respond. >> did you have enough time to get there in time? >> no.
Feb 3, 2013 6:30pm PST
, the agencies, primarily the pentagon and the c.i.a. nominate people to be on the list. and it goes through what the white house promises is a very rigorous process of review to determine if those people should or should not be on the list. we don't know exactly what the standard is. but it involves a number of criteria, including whether the host country, the country in which this person, particular person is cooperative or not vis-À-vis capturing the person. in any event, they have a standard. names are nominated. it goes through an interagency process. and finally it makes it to the president. and he makes the final decision who is or is not on the list. does that sound like what you understand? >> i think that's certainly what the government has said happens. and, of course, this is the problem is that the only thing that we ever know about the counterintelligence stuff over the last 10 or 11 years has been, you know, what the government has been forced to say, what journalists have been able to find out, or what human rights organizations like ours have been able to find out on the ground.